That giant sucking sound you hear is the shuttle sucking

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

askold

Guest
the life out of the US science program.<br /><br />While the shuttle sits on the ground accomplishing nothing, it’s sucking up all the NASA funds causing the cancellation of:<br /><br />1) Hubble servicing mission<br />2) Dawn asteroid mission<br />3) The mission to Europa<br />4) Terrestrial Planet Finder<br />5) Mars Scout missions after 2011<br />6) Mars Sample Return<br />7) Mars Telecommunications Orbiter<br /><br />and the list goes on.<br /><br />I think we should junk the shuttle and do some science.<br />
 
B

baktothemoon

Guest
That's why we are doing the CEV.<br /><br />"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." John F. Kennedy
 
M

mattblack

Guest
What else is new!?<br /><br />In my opinion, the following unmanned science missions should have science funding priority:<br /><br />1): Hubble.<br />2): Dawn.<br />3): RTG-powered replacements for the MERs.<br />4): TPF.<br />5): Mars Sample Return.<br /><br />Even a Sample Return, though 'sexy', could wait awhile because frankly, we're already examining the rocks, albeit basically ON Mars...<br /><br />Anything else can be postponed or cancelled until we get our spit together on manned space.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>
 
D

digitalman2

Guest
Shuttle's primary job at this point (once it launches again) is completing ISS.<br /><br />Isn't ISS primarily to be used for scientific research? If so, it would seem disingenuous for so many complaints to arise through various news sources suggesting science is getting huge cuts in order to make way for exploration. And if it will be useful for scientific research, why is the investment in it being ignored? Seems like money is largely being shifted from one area of scientific research to another, due to international obligations. I do recall Mike mentioning that cuts first came out of the exploration budget before science, so that hardly seems fair or reasonable.<br /><br />I don't see how it could be considered exploration to be on ISS, so it seems like it does nothing for the issue of a balance between science, exploration and engineering research. <br /><br />It has been so long since any manned exploration took place I just want to cry...<br /><br />:-((
 
L

l3p3r

Guest
the shuttle should go, yes, but it isnt the real problem<br />we shouldn't have to junk <i>any</i> mission - there should be more funds to start with! <br /><br />it has to be said that the current NASA budget is pitiful.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
A

askold

Guest
What CEV? - there's no CEV.<br /><br />Though there could be if the shuttle black hole didn't absorb most of NASA's resources.
 
N

n_kitson

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p> the following unmanned science missions should have science funding priority<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />I like your list, so am going to share mine as well, which looks similar:<br /><br />1. JWST (Hubble requires far too expensive servicing)<br />2. DAWN<br />3. RTG power for the Mars Science Lab<br />4. TPF<br />5. Europa orbiter / impactor<br /><br />I agree with you on the sample return - nice and sexy, but given the fact that with the current budget we can barely analyze all the data we're getting back, and the incredible suite of instruments planned for MSL, the sample return will be more for the sake of publicity.<br /><br />I wouldn't say everything else should be canceled. we also should have:<br />- A comprehensive post-MSL Mars exploration program<br />- A mission to Phobos and Deimos<br />- A Venus balloon or balloon/lander combo<br /><br />Just my 2 cents.
 
B

baktothemoon

Guest
"What CEV? - there's no CEV.<br />Though there could be if the shuttle black hole didn't absorb most of NASA's resources."<br /><br />Not yet, but all you have to do is be patient and wait a few years until we get it. The shuttle has been a somewhat of a money pit but complaining about it now won't make a difference. Now that the manifest is out, the ISS will be completed as planned. NASA's razor thin budget is to blame for all the programs that have been delayed or cancelled. The only thing that would stop funds from going to the shuttle would be a third accident, and no one here wants to see that again. Nothing but disaster will stop the shuttle program now, complaining is futile.<br /><br />"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." John F. Kennedy<br /><br />
 
J

j05h

Guest
>Nothing but disaster will stop the shuttle program now, complaining is futile. <br /><br />I disagree. If all of us space cadets call our senate staffers daily, we could see some action on cancelling STS. the problem with that is it takes away from posting on SDC. 8)<br /><br />There are many scenarios besides a catastrophic accident that could ground STS permanently. The last couple weeks' accidents in the VAB are an example. If the Shuttle workers break to much stuff, set to many more fires, etc, the program could see stand-down. The fire near the SRBs last week could have lead to some serious fireworks. If they didn't fly into 2007, maybe it gets cancelled. There are no guarantees that ISS will be completed at this point.<br /><br />If you can't guess from this post, I'd like to see STS/ISS cancelled or reinvented. The "giant sucking sound" has been going on since the early 90s, and I'd rather see that money go to our incredible, low-cost robotic probes and development of reasonably affordable deepspace manned hardware, ie CEV. CEV should, however, be baselined to launch on existing boosters instead of Shuttle-derived. <br /><br />I can dream, can't I? <br /><br />Josh<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>
 
A

askold

Guest
Exactly - complaining and recognizing there is a problem is the first step to action.<br /><br />The reasons for the lack of action are the same as any other porkbarrel project - the paticipants all win individually even if nothing good comes of it.
 
R

rogers_buck

Guest
Rioters News Service<br />Throngs of enraged scientists decended upon the VAB with sledge hammers and chain saws. They were after the shuttles, but quick thinking NASA contractor shuttle_guy hoisted them up out of reach and swallowed the remote control. Security forces managed to control the mob just as a biologist began the procedure of extracting the remote. Shuttle_guy was given some metamucil and sent home to await the outcome, the shuttles fate hanging in the balance.<br /><br />Voicing sympathy for the scientists plight, there was a fist fight that errupted aboard the ISS as Astronaut and Cosmonaut struggled for control of the station. It sin't clear who has won since the station is now dangerously low and the Soyuz was spotted on radar seperating from the ISS.<br /><br />An angry NASA inisisted that it will continue to fly shuttles to the black hole where the ISS used to be to fullfill its international obligations.<br />
 
A

askold

Guest
Or, maybe, the space cadets that are feeding at the trough are in favor of the shuttle. Objective observers recognize that there are far better ways to spend NASA's billions.
 
M

mattblack

Guest
Er... Some of you posters are new and I guess relatively new to this subject, which has every quality of a dead horse being not just flogged, but buried then dug up to be flogged again!!<br /><br />This sucker was made into leather years ago now.<br /><br />But I digress (slightly) -- It's a question of semantics. Shuttle-derived are also "existing" boosters. The EELVs, like the Shuttle-derived, will need modification and in some ways, much upgrading. EELVs, without significant upgrading to their upper stages, will have trajectories that are too "lofted", putting heavy loads on the crew and capsule abort systems during many kinds of abort.<br /><br />The EELV-derived trade studies, and God knows there were many (I read them all!!), showed that to lift 50+plus tons to LEO which is the bare minimum for a VSE program; a long and costly development program would have to be undertaken both to the boosters and infrastructure. Under the BEST case scenario, it would take about the same amount of money and time to develop ELV-Derived heavies as it would Shuttle-derived. Worst case? Far MORE money and YEARS longer.<br /><br />**But in both cases with ELV-derived: You'd end up with, in the case of the cargo launcher, a launcher that would orbit a payload HALF (worst case) to 60 percent (best case) of a Shuttle derived launcher.<br /><br />Also, next to the Soyuz rocket, the Shuttle SRM has a record as the statistically SAFEST human-rated booster in the world. Atlas V and Delta IV have launched no living soul (yet?).<br /><br />So in the end, why bother with EELV-derived? Let's just get on with it, guys and push humans back out of Low Earth Orbit. This time for good.... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>
 
M

mattblack

Guest
>>There was never any danger to the SRBs....no matter what the news said.<<<br /><br />You are so right, Shuttle_guy. The media will spin and spin relentlessly for a story, and some of them want the space program to fail at every turn. To coin a phrase from a famous pop song, Nasa takes it's knocks but:<br /><br />"I get knocked down but I get up again, you're never going to keep me down, I get knocked down, but I get up again.." <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>
 
F

frodo1008

Guest
I keep trying to keep at least this forum clear of this kind of thing! If you are going to use sarcastic and snide innuendos, please go over to the land of such, otherwise known as free space. There you will have the opportunity to duel with the lords of such nastiness. Of course, don't expect any kind of mercy from either of the extremes of the political spectrum over there. However, if you are going to take these kinds of liberties with your posts, then please do NOT continue to post here!<br /><br />Your statement is totally unfounded besides. I know of no posters here that work directly for NASA. Some may work for various NASA contractors, but like shuttle-guy quite probably could easily either work somewhere else, or are old enough to retire. And don't even bother with me, I retired six years ago, and what is left of by Boeing retirement is a mutual fund not even dependent on Boeing, much less NASA. The rest of my living is social security. <br /><br />So what you posted is not only snide, sarcastic innuendo, it is also totally false!<br /><br />In no manner is the US congress going to shut down either the shuttle or the ISS at this time! You can be upset about it all you wish, you can even write your representatives all you want. It will just be a waste of time! What you may do is to turn congress against any further funding of NASA at all. If you succeed in doing this, then ALL of the various scientific robotic probes will be history! Tell me, how many such deep space probes have been funded by pure profit making private interests? You know as well as I do that if the federal government doesn't continue to fund NASA there will be exactly zero such probes in the future!<br /><br />I too, as well as the others here that support NASA, the shuttle, ISS , and CEV programs have also protested the cuts in the scientific programs (by the way just how is the Hubble supposed to be serviced without the shuttle?). <br /><br />I have shown where it would take VERY L
 
F

frodo1008

Guest
Yes, you can dream!<br /><br />But then so did my generation back in the 1960's and early 1970's dream...<br /><br />Our biggest dreamer was a rocket scientist (many would say the greatest such scientist) by the name of Wherner Von Braun. His dreams, and ours included true rotating large space stations in High Earth Orbit, large bases on the moon (even possible colonization), and at least reasonable sized bases on Mars. And all of this before 1980!!<br /><br />However, the last administrations of LBJ, and even more the administration of R. Nixon had other ideas. Instead they wished to blow holes in rice paddies in South East Asia. A war in Viet Nahm that eventually turned out to not only be useless, but an eventual losing cause! A war with an enemy that is now such a friend to American corporate interests, that they rush to inaugurate more and more trade with! <br /><br />So our dreams were destroyed, much to the loss of not only the US, but of all mankind as well!<br /><br />All that was salvaged (and kept the dream itself alive) was the magnificent but heavily flawed STS system. This was NOT NASA's fault but the fault of the then administrations and congresses!<br /><br />So now we are engaged in another war that is turning out to be a failure. A war, which by the way within another year, at its current rate, will actually surpass the monetary costs of Viet Nahm, whether it will surpass Viet Nahm in the cost of American blood is anybody’s guess! So now it is indeed YOUR dreams that are on the line here!!<br /><br />But, carping at NASA isn't going to help one bit, and may just do even greater damage. IF NASA was to go down to such negativity, then who is going to fund deep space probes? What would be the profit to the American corporate structure (the only other people capable of such funding) for this pure scientific research in the far flung reaches of the solar system? Tell me, I would actually like to know?<br /><br />This year alone the amount of money being spent
 
R

rogers_buck

Guest
>> Or, maybe, the space cadets that are feeding at the trough are in favor of the shuttle. <br /><br />That was uncalled for. I have never seen any indications that shuttle_guy has been anything but honest in his support of the shuttle and the missions it is used for. You might not see the same value that he does in those mission, but it is an unkind leap of assumption to suggest he is merely worried about his pay check. Some people have the good fortune of really liking what they are doing - total emersion. You should appologize.<br /><br />
 
A

askold

Guest
My comment was not directed at SG personally, but if he feels offended then I'm sorry.<br /><br />The point is that a federal bureaucracy can not monitor itself. Griffin has made it clear that one of his primary goals is to maintain the shuttle workforce. That decision means spending most of NASA's budget on the shuttle whether or not it flies, whether or not it accomplishes anything.<br /><br />In the normal world failed projects get less money and successful projects get more money. Not so with NASA. As a taxpayer I have the right to ask if NASA is making budgetary decisions based what is good for science or what is good for NASA.
 
F

frodo1008

Guest
The main problem is that askold has his particular agenda. And anything else that anyone else does is a waste of time and money to him. He is not against just the shuttle and the ISS, he is against NASA having ANY kind of manned program at all. <br /><br />The one thing that I can admire about him is his persistence. His ideas have been shot down time and time again here, and he will withdraw for awhile, and then later pop up again. <br /><br />What he will not realize is that we that advocate not only a manned program, but completing the ISS with the shuttle, then retiring the shuttle, and developing the CEV are just as much for the science side of NASA as he is! It is NOT his exclusive territory!<br /><br />In actuality, with the amount of power and volume available on a completed ISS, and with at least six people on board (some naturally being scientist mission control types) there is bound to be far more science done on the ISS than he would like to admit there could be. Despite the considerable advances in robotics, human beings still perform both the actual experimental side, and the data reduction side of science far, far better than any robots can! <br /><br />At least to my knowledge there have yet to be any robots receiving PHD degrees in any science! So there WILL be meaningful science accomplished on the ISS. As a matter of fact, the entire area of space studies has just scratched the surface on what is yet possible in this area. <br /><br />I could go into very great detail here, but askold knows this truth, he has just taken his particular stand and just doesn't want to give the other side of the discussion a break. I have seen this kind of thing over on free space with extremists from both sides of the political spectrum. <br /><br />And not only would this science be accomplished by the US, but the partners in the ISS are also going to be available. This will bring fresh ideas to what is being done. To abandon all this and just throw it away into
 
G

gunsandrockets

Guest
"The main problem is that askold has his particular agenda. And anything else that anyone else does is a waste of time and money to him. He is not against just the shuttle and the ISS, he is against NASA having ANY kind of manned program at all."<br /><br />Exactly right!
 
F

frodo1008

Guest
While I am about it, I know that you shuttle_guy also realize a truth that our opposite discussion partners don't. I doubt if they have had experience with the shutting down of a large government program complete with contracts! To just shut down the shuttle program as he and some others seem to be advocating will add billions to the costs themselves! This should not stop such an action, but if some of this cost can be either avoided, or at the very least turned into some kind of use, then it won't be all a waste! THIS is just one other reason to make use of what components of the shuttle program that can be made use of in the next program (the CEV). Therefore, that is also one of the reasons to use the propulsion capabilities of the shuttle program in the SRB’s and the SSME's.<br /><br />Just thought I would throw that little tidbit in from some of my own experience in working in the space program for some 37,5 years!<br />
 
A

askold

Guest
I'm just the guy who's willing to say the emperor has no clothes.<br /><br />I work in planning, budgeting and managing. You can't go back into the past and you can't predict the future with 100% accuracy; so you work with what you got. If I thought the shuttle would actually finish the ISS I'd say - go ahead. I can live without the ISS, but we've gone this far, so finish it.<br /><br />I don't think we're going to finish it. The shuttle's aging and the public's/NASA's tollerance for risk is getting smaller. I think we're going to fly a mission a year and end up with a 60% built ISS rather than a 50% ISS.<br /><br />In the real world you have to know when to cut your losses and move on.<br /><br />As for the ISS's science - other than long-duration flight stidies what's the ISS ever going to accomplish. Will it look for water on the moon or Mars? Will it study the moons of Saturn? Will it make any discoveries about the orgins of the universe? I don't think so.
 
G

gunsandrockets

Guest
"I don't think we're going to finish it. The shuttle's aging and the public's/NASA's tollerance for risk is getting smaller. I think we're going to fly a mission a year and end up with a 60% built ISS rather than a 50% ISS."<br /><br />So how many missions past four will it take for you to admit you're wrong?
 
A

askold

Guest
None past 4.<br /><br />If I'm wrong I will admit it right here - on the board.<br /><br />Will you?
 
Q

qso1

Guest
The giant sucking sound I hear is the budget deficit, which dwarfs NASA spending in its entirety. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts